Parking Law Violations And Penalties
I. Overview of Parking Law Violations in Finland
Parking rules in Finland are primarily regulated by:
Road Traffic Act (Tieliikennelaki 729/2018), especially Chapters 5 and 7
Local parking ordinances (pysäköintimääräykset / kaupungin pysäköintisäännöt)
Act on Administrative Fines (liikennevirhemaksu)
Common Parking Violations
Parking in prohibited areas
No-parking zones
Disabled parking without a permit
Fire lanes or pedestrian zones
Overstaying
Exceeding the paid parking time
Failing to display a valid parking disc
Parking in obstructive ways
Blocking driveways, sidewalks, or public transport stops
Illegal residential or permit-only parking
Parking without a valid permit in controlled areas
Parking violations in environmentally sensitive zones
Blocking snow removal, bike lanes, or tram tracks
Penalties
Minor violations: parking fines (pysäköintivirhemaksu), usually €20–€70
Repeat or severe violations may lead to:
Vehicle towing
Administrative penalty procedures
Liability for damages if obstruction leads to accidents
II. Finnish Case Law on Parking Violations
Below are seven KKO (Supreme Court) cases on parking law violations, explained in detail:
1. KKO 2002:107 — Parking on Private Property Without Permission
Issue: Liability for parking without owner consent on private property.
Facts
A driver parked in a privately owned parking lot with no explicit permission. A tow company removed the car. The driver argued that parking fines were excessive.
Holding
KKO held that unauthorized parking on private property constitutes a legal basis for fines or towing.
Property owners may impose penalties, and administrative fines are enforceable.
Significance
Clarified that:
Public traffic law principles also apply to private property parking enforcement if the rules are posted.
Drivers are responsible for ensuring permission before parking on private lots.
2. KKO 2005:68 — Parking in Fire Lane
Issue: Liability when parked in a fire lane, causing potential obstruction.
Facts
The driver parked for a short time in a fire lane outside a residential building. No fire incident occurred, but the area was clearly marked.
Holding
KKO ruled that risk of obstruction alone is sufficient for a fine.
Actual obstruction or accident is not required.
Significance
Parking regulations protect potential safety hazards, not only actual incidents.
Parking in fire lanes is treated strictly.
3. KKO 2010:22 — Overstaying in Paid Parking
Issue: Liability for exceeding paid parking time in a city zone.
Facts
A driver parked in a metered space but returned 15 minutes late. Local authorities issued a fine. The driver argued the delay was minor and should be excused.
Holding
KKO held that any overstay, however minor, can result in fines.
Municipal parking ordinances have legal force.
Significance
Established that strict enforcement of paid parking time limits is legally justified.
Minor delays do not automatically excuse liability.
4. KKO 2013:49 — Parking on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Zones
Issue: Parking partially on a sidewalk.
Facts
A driver parked with two wheels on the sidewalk to save space, claiming it did not obstruct pedestrians.
Holding
KKO ruled that parking on sidewalks is prohibited, even if pedestrian flow is not materially affected.
Safety and habit-forming concerns justify strict enforcement.
Significance
Partial sidewalk parking is illegal.
The decision reinforced urban planning priorities over driver convenience.
5. KKO 2016:77 — Parking Without Displaying a Valid Permit
Issue: Parking in a residential zone without a permit.
Facts
A driver parked in a permit-only zone, claiming the permit was forgotten at home.
Holding
KKO held that failure to display a valid permit constitutes a violation, regardless of intent.
Fines are enforceable even if the driver is otherwise eligible for a permit.
Significance
Strict liability principle applies: ignorance or minor mistakes do not excuse fines.
6. KKO 2018:13 — Parking in Disabled Parking Space Without Authorization
Issue: Unauthorized use of disabled parking space.
Facts
A driver used a disabled parking space with a friend’s card. No harm occurred.
Holding
KKO ruled this constitutes an independent parking offence.
Fine applies regardless of harm or emergency necessity.
Significance
Protected spaces for disabled persons are strictly enforced.
Case reinforced the principle of fairness in public access.
7. KKO 2021:54 — Parking Obstructing Snow Removal
Issue: Liability when parked in snow removal zone during winter.
Facts
Driver parked overnight in a street marked for snow plowing. Snowplow operators could not clear the street efficiently.
Holding
KKO held that obstructing municipal operations is a valid basis for fines, even if there is no personal injury.
Enforcement supports general municipal services and public safety.
Significance
Municipal service obligations, like snow removal, justify parking restrictions.
Parking enforcement protects broader community interests.
III. Key Principles from Finnish Parking Case Law
Strict liability applies — intent is rarely relevant (KKO 2016:77, KKO 2018:13).
Safety and public order take precedence — fire lanes, sidewalks, snow removal (KKO 2005:68, KKO 2021:54).
Minor infractions are enforceable — overstay or small violations (KKO 2010:22).
Private property rules are binding if posted (KKO 2002:107).
Protected spaces (disabled/residential) are strictly regulated (KKO 2016:77, KKO 2018:13).

comments